| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Swalesey
Prosperity Through Violence
   |
Posted - 2010.01.12 18:29:00 -
[31]
I also have a proposal. There should be some kind of law where people who post threads like this have to pay a fine to concorde. If they don't have any isk they can just pay it as they earn it, or as they sell more gtc. whichever applies.
|
Asuka Smith
Gallente
Noir.
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 18:31:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Belkadan
When did ganking become a crime?
Since day 1. The police have come to kill gankers since they were introduced, no one debates whether it is a crime; only what the punishment should be.
|
Lucyn
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 18:37:00 -
[33]
There is no change to the game mechanics coming. This has been in place for YEARS and this is not the first war declared on empire mining. There have been numerous threads requesting anti-ganking changes. Give it up already. 
|
Gabriel Spikes
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 20:19:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Lucyn
There is no change to the game mechanics coming. This has been in place for YEARS and this is not the first war declared on empire mining. There have been numerous threads requesting anti-ganking changes. Give it up already.
Everything changes in life, all we can do is point the leaders to the direction we would like the changes to happen.
Although sometimes we get changes we dont like we must either except or fight for better changes.
|
Schwa88
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 20:21:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Gabriel Spikes
I would like to purpose a new rule of law, that will patch the insurance loophole, and make high sec safe for the new young players of eve.
this rule of law would be enforce in .5 - 1.0 sec status sectors.
1. the ganker shell pay concord for the insurance payout of the gankie, if found guily of ganking.
if the ganker doesnt have the isk to cover his account will have a lien on it and every isk he/she earns eill be forward to concord until payment in full.
Uhm... yeah no. Also -1 for no real originality.
|
MicroWarpdrive II
the united
Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 21:16:00 -
[36]
Op is a scrub
|
Tuvar Hiede
Caldari
Snuggle Muffins
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 21:46:00 -
[37]
QQ some more, I like spending 10 mil to smartbomb a mining fleet of Makinaws into the stoneage muhaha. 1bil loss in 15 secinds or less
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 21:52:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Scam Watcher
Originally by: Gabriel Spikes
new young players of eve
targets of this operation are exhumer pilots. If youre in a hulk, youve trained at BARE MINIMUM, 60 days to fly it.
Get lost...these players arent "new".
Malcanis' Law: Whenever someone makes a proposal to change the game to "protect/help new players", the change will always be to the overwhelming benefit of rich, older players.
|
Lucyn
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 22:53:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Gabriel Spikes
Originally by: Lucyn
There is no change to the game mechanics coming. This has been in place for YEARS and this is not the first war declared on empire mining. There have been numerous threads requesting anti-ganking changes. Give it up already.
Everything changes in life, all we can do is point the leaders to the direction we would like the changes to happen.
Although sometimes we get changes we dont like we must either except or fight for better changes.
I don't mean any disrespect to your attempt to ask for a change.
I was saying that I have seen requests about changes that would seriously hinder ganking for years. Nothing has come of it, despite hundreds or even thousands of threads requesting this so I think it is pretty clear nothing more is going to happen.
The closest thing to a change was to make Concord spawn faster. This does not change much, it just means the alpha strike has to be fatal. Since the isk loss of the ganking ship is negligible it changed nothing to require 6 ships instead of 3 to make a kill (or whatever the multiplier need per the target's buffer tank).
Bon chance with your quest for change. 'Eve' seems to like being what it is.
|
Zill
The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 23:05:00 -
[40]
I am surprised that CCP have stuck to their guns over this an refused to change it. last big change I saw was when they removed the timer in highsec during Jihad.While I enjoyed GF's Hulk hunts They did refrain from the mass killing that happen these days, so the fact CCP don't do anything about it now kinda shows they have no intention of it.
|
|
|
Otocinclus
Minmatar
E-3 Mafia
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 23:41:00 -
[41]
CCP isn't going to implement a bunch of "rules" to protect miners. It's been said a million times, but Concord isn't there to protect you, they're there to punish gankers. (like myself ^^). High sec doesn't mean Safe sec, EVE is not going to be friendly to anyone.
|
The Jam
Sinner Among Saints
Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 23:58:00 -
[42]
Edited by: The Jam on 12/01/2010 23:59:24
if CCP gave a happy ending with the insurence no one would whine. * and with happy ending i ment space sexs*
|
Goauld Baal
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 02:20:00 -
[43]
I agree with OP
|
Sho Me
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 03:26:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Mr JitaFantastic
Originally by: Varesk
or we could start taxing people who are afk mining or moving stuff. this would make them sit at their computer and not lose ships.
BINGO
the only people getting ganked are the macroers and script kiddies. Die.
Lighten up, Francis. Just because you're incapable of PVPing with active participants doesn't mean you actually have skills.
|
Garst Tyrell
Amarr
No.Mercy
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 06:34:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Ran Khanon
Edited by: Ran Khanon on 11/01/2010 23:56:17
Edited by: Ran Khanon on 11/01/2010 23:44:23
Too harsh.
Let's just balance insurance costs and payouts and make them more realistic;
-Make t2 ship payouts a little more (-> less paranoia to take out expensive ships to pvp with)
-Make T1 ship payouts a little less
-Have insurance costs slightly scale with the amount of ships you lose (like in real life) so nubies still get the best deal.
-No insurance payouts when the loss of your ship was the direct result of a crime you committed in highsec
I like the last item, insurance fraud is so silly in this game. I HATE the idea of decreasing payout depending on how much you pvp. Im sure the active pvpers who have been fighting for years would love to find that their armgeddons now pay out malediction level payouts.
"I long for death, not because I seek peace, but because I seek the war eternal" |
Baillif
Red Mist Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 07:24:00 -
[46]
They call it suicide ganking but I think it undersells the homicide that goes along with it.
|
Ran Khanon
Amarr
Vengeance Innovations
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 07:35:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Garst Tyrell
Originally by: Ran Khanon
Edited by: Ran Khanon on 11/01/2010 23:56:17
Edited by: Ran Khanon on 11/01/2010 23:44:23
Too harsh.
Let's just balance insurance costs and payouts and make them more realistic;
-Make t2 ship payouts a little more (-> less paranoia to take out expensive ships to pvp with)
-Make T1 ship payouts a little less
-Have insurance costs slightly scale with the amount of ships you lose (like in real life) so nubies still get the best deal.
-No insurance payouts when the loss of your ship was the direct result of a crime you committed in highsec
I like the last item, insurance fraud is so silly in this game. I HATE the idea of decreasing payout depending on how much you pvp. Im sure the active pvpers who have been fighting for years would love to find that their armgeddons now pay out malediction level payouts.
Yeah that was why I added 'slightly'. It shouldn't be as hardcore as that. I was thinking more of something along the lines of a fifth increase in initial payment max for a reasonably short duration after which it resets. But you're right as well. That one is the least appealing of the four since it could mean another reason to avoid pvp.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 06:26:00 -
[48]
Your forgetting an important point about insurance payouts, it supports the economy.
If a pilot didn't get *most* of his money back he wouldn't be able to buy a new ship as easily.
If payouts were lower, players wouldn't fly expensive ships like Hulks but mine in Covetors, production would suffer as less ships bought and the economy would stagnate.
If the economy stagnates PLEX sales would suffer. CCP will never allow PLEX sales to drop as it is income.
Insurance will stay and they probably won't make any changes. Insurance fraud only became profitable on a wide scale around October 2009 (last time was 08), and it is currently close to breakeven.
If people can run insurance fraud then mineral prices will rise as producers buy all the minerals they can to conduct the fraud.
|
Lucas Lucias
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 07:47:00 -
[49]
I do not want to see the end of ganking simple as that, I think it adds excitement to the game, you should not take your own safety for granted.
In terms of the issue it comes down to what I call a value proposition, there was a case where one person tanked his Mac and was attacked initially by Destroyers, then by a BS and then by 5 BS which was successful. The last attack cost the gankers ISK 5m. This is where I have an issue, there was no incentive for the gankers to find a less costly target, now if insurance for people who were Concorded was set to Basic payout only then at least there will be some value in tanking the Hulk as this difference may make the gankers look elsewhere.
No other change is required in my view.
|
Slimy Worm
Vivicide
Vivisection.
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 09:29:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Barqs
Those be tears I hear.
I like
Barqs-
Even if the ganker had to pay the ganked's insurance, would it matter?
Remember the time you ganked me and I tried to (unsuccessfully) bluff Atlas into making you pay it back by threatening to disrupt trade in the Passari pipe? Would you have cared at all if you had to pay the 600k isk payout on my Bestower?
But that's all moot anyway since high-sec ganking isn't a problem. Don't fix what ain't broken.
|
|
|
Lucifer Mullins
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 16:13:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Gabriel Spikes
I would like to purpose a new rule of law, that will patch the insurance loophole, and make high sec safe for the new young players of eve.
this rule of law would be enforce in .5 - 1.0 sec status sectors.
1. the ganker shell pay concord for the insurance payout of the gankie, if found guily of ganking.
if the ganker doesnt have the isk to cover his account will have a lien on it and every isk he/she earns eill be forward to concord until payment in full.
Nahh, let's just get rid of insurance altogether. Then, just like in real life, when you cause an aggravated police or rescue response, the one that generated it (i.e. the Ganker) owes Concorde money based on the amount of ships that responded, at oh, 250k ISK per Cruiser, double that for a BS. That would be a GREAT ISK sink, let me tell you. Should the character not have the money, then half of all future earnings go towards repayment.
You gotta give'em ISK to continue. Oh and deleting a character with a negative balance owed is the same as deleting a negative sec status character (aka exploit)
---
Dulce et decorum, est pro patria mori! |
Normin Bates
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 20:50:00 -
[52]
posting in a QQ thread. |
Ortus Phoenix
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 21:30:00 -
[53]
My question is why we would expect an NPC function to reimburse us if we knowingly commit a "crime" in game. It is somewhat counter intuitive to have a game mechanic reward us for something after another game mechanic killed us for our actions.
Possible fix would be to not pay more then the base insurance out for Concordoken.
As well to balance this, slow concord's arrival some, and not make it considered a Game Exploit to escape concord.
#1 will make it less profitable for the average Joe Ganker, but will allow the EVE John Dillingers to make a way of it and profit from HARD WORK and PLANNING, rather then what is essentially a Drive by!
|
Biczkowski
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 00:09:00 -
[54]
lol, I'm a new noobchar and this "law" sounds stupid to me
|
BeachParty
Caldari
Semi Precious
The 0bsidian 0rder
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 00:58:00 -
[55]
sad
|
Grunanca
Final Agony
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 12:43:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Herty
too bad pirates are badass griefers and would never pay a fine
Ill pay the fine, the day you pay 10% of your ship's value for undocking in high sec. You should after all be safe right? That cant be free, not when you can make isk there.
Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Lucifer Mullins
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 16:56:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Grunanca
Originally by: Herty
too bad pirates are badass griefers and would never pay a fine
Ill pay the fine, the day you pay 10% of your ship's value for undocking in high sec. You should after all be safe right? That cant be free, not when you can make isk there.
Not to sound like an a$$ mate, but they do pay taxes on transactions, not to mention if they're in NPC corps which now have higher taxes than many player corps, et al. So you should realize your argument falls under the "I'm a dumba$$ for validating the opposing argument" right?
I'll say end all insurance (except for getting a new player ship) and charge the Concorde response to the ganker. 250k per cruiser, 500k per BS, et al. Lose half of your future income until the balance is paid off and it's considered an exploit to delete such a character just like I can't delete my - sec status char. I don't want to imagine the bill a smartbombing geddon will generate  At the very least, it'll make a great ISK sink.
---
Dulce et decorum, est pro patria mori! |
Shanitra Kerr
|
Posted - 2010.01.17 09:40:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Jint Hikaru
You already get indsurance, and your justice is Kill Rights on the ganker.
Man-up and use them, or shutup!
Face it: "Kill Rights" on a guy with a headstart of 10 mio SP and three months' time to catch up to him are just an additional kick to the crotch when you're down. "Man-up" - who are you, the guy who canned Chuck Norris?
|
Kirsi Kirjasto
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 13:22:00 -
[59]
Ganker's law is like Ganker's love. Hard and fast.
Gankers should also have to pay for the CARGO lost by the ganked victim.
IE, you gank a freighter carrying 6 Billion - your wallet goes 6 Billion into the red, and you have to buy $360 worth of PLEX to keep playing EVE.
Gankers need to have more RISK in this game.
|
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 14:11:00 -
[60]
Quote:
Face it: "Kill Rights" on a guy with a headstart of 10 mio SP and three months' time to catch up to him are just an additional kick to the crotch when you're down. "Man-up" - who are you, the guy who canned Chuck Norris?
Nope, I never canned Mr Norris... I am simply a hisec bear who has so far managed to avoid getting ganked (I guess not flying on autopilot with cargo really does help)... and I also believe that the hisec should not be 'safe', the danger element makes this game worth playing.
Oh and crying on the forums is the worst way to avoid being ganked....
------------------------
Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer
"I've got a couple of Strippers on my ship... and they just love to dance!"
------------------------ |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |